12 matter particles suffice in nature

Dec 13, 2012
Based on the data produced by big detectors like CMS at CERN, Geneva, the structure of matter can be studied in detail. Credit: Photo: Markus Breig, KIT

How many matter particles exist in nature? Particle physicists have been dealing with this question for a long time. The 12 matter particles contained in the standard model of particle physics? Or are there further particles with too high a mass to be produced by the experiments performed so far? These questions are now answered by researchers of KIT, CERN, and Humboldt University in the current issue of the Physical Review Letters.

, also called , are the elementary components of the universe. They make up everything we see on earth or through telescopes. "For a long time, however, it was not clear whether we know all components," explains Ulrich Nierste, Professor at KIT. The knows 12 fermions. Based on their similar properties, they are divided into three generations of four particles each. Only the first generation of particles occurs in appreciable amount outside of . Among these particles are the electron, the electron neutrino, and the up-quark and down-quark. Up- and down-quarks form heavier particles, such as protons and neutrons and, hence, all elements of the periodic system.

"But why does nature have second and third generations, if these are hardly needed? And are there maybe more generations of particles?", ask the main authors of the article, Martin Wiebusch and Otto Eberhardt. At least, the latter question is answered: "There are exactly three fermion generations in the standard model of particle physics!"

For their analysis, the researchers combined latest data collected by the particle accelerators LHC and with many known measurements results relating to particles, such as the Z-boson or the top-quark. The result of the statistical analysis is that the existence of further fermions can be excluded with a probability of 99.99999 percent (5.3 sigma). The most important data used for this analysis come from the recently discovered Higgs particle.

The Higgs particle gives all other particles their mass. As additional fermions were not detected directly in accelerator experiments, they have to be heavier than the fermions known so far. Hence, these fermions would also interact with the Higgs particle more strongly. This interaction would have modified the properties of the Higgs particle such that this particle would not have been detected. With the exclusion of the fourth fermion generation the first open question of particle physics is now answered by the measurements made at the new LHC particle accelerator ring of .

"Within the standard model the number of fermions is now firmly established," explains Nierste. However, some interesting questions remain. The properties of the just discovered Higgs particle still have to be determined and it has to be found out why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe.

Explore further: New microscope collects dynamic images of the molecules that animate life

More information: DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.241802

Related Stories

Z-prime search may hurdle Higgs hunt

Aug 25, 2011

If you're bummed about humanity's biggest accelerator not producing a Higgs particle yet, maybe the latest effort to find a Z-prime will make you feel better. ...

'The most important discovery in recent decades'

Jul 06, 2012

Interview with Sandra Kortner of the Max Planck Institute for Physics in Munich, who heads a Minerva junior research group at the ATLAS experiment of the LHC and also coordinates an international group of ...

Quark matter's connection with the Higgs

Aug 27, 2012

(Phys.org)—You may think you've heard everything you need to know about the origin of mass. After all, scientists colliding protons at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Europe recently presented stunning ...

Recommended for you

Cooling with molecules

Oct 22, 2014

An international team of scientists have become the first ever researchers to successfully reach temperatures below minus 272.15 degrees Celsius – only just above absolute zero – using magnetic molecules. ...

User comments : 62

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

boater805
3.5 / 5 (13) Dec 13, 2012
Does this mean super symmetric particles have been eliminated from possibility? Superstring theory as currently formulated requires super symmetry in order for it to enfold the variants under the m-theory umbrella. Without super symmetic partners the theory is returned to its dog days of hopeless intractability.
Sonhouse
not rated yet Dec 13, 2012
Does this mean super symmetric particles have been eliminated from possibility? Superstring theory as currently formulated requires super symmetry in order for it to enfold the variants under the m-theory umbrella. Without super symmetic partners the theory is returned to its dog days of hopeless intractability.

I don't know, maybe just ordinary intractability....
indio007
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2012
A priori assumptions (like the ones in this article) usually end in failure.
Eoprime
3.8 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2012
Does this mean super symmetric particles ....


No I dont think so (without reading the paper)
12 matter fermions 12 antimatter and maybe 12 SS or 12 whatever
doesnt seem to exlude antimatter so why should it exlude supersymetric matter
am_Unition
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 13, 2012
I posit that the general nature of the universe is fractal.

This suggests an infinite number of terms, similar to perturbation theory.

The conditions in which we exist are still very much strongly centered on the first two terms.

Perhaps as we create more and more energetic conditions (right now, the LHC is on top), higher order terms will reveal themselves... but in our lifetimes? Likely not.
liggerstuxin
1 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2012
@am_Unition
I agree, every damn thing seems to be a fractal!
VendicarD
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2012
Yes

"Does this mean super symmetric particles have been eliminated from possibility?" - Boater
baudrunner
1.3 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2012
The most important data used for this analysis come from the recently discovered Higgs particle. The Higgs particle gives all other particles their mass.
There you have it. As the news story grows older, the assumptions grow more absolute. Typical.

But why does nature have second and third generations, if these are hardly needed?
Sorry, but that's just a plain stupid thing to say. The other generations exist for very short amounts of time - in the order of billionths of billionths of a second - but they are the precursors to the eventually stable first generation of particles we experience as matter. As to whether there are other generations of matter, one must travel back in time to the very last generation, which is one single colossal fermion which yields creation. The question arises, then, as to what the other generations of matter occur after that one that go on generating intermittent precursors until we come to the fermions that we know to exist.
vacuum-mechanics
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 13, 2012
"Within the standard model the number of fermions is now firmly established," explains Nierste. However, some interesting questions remain. The properties of the just discovered Higgs particle still have to be determined and it has to be found out why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe.

Maybe the problem is that what we have found (and thought that they are the elementary particles), actually only electron and proton (in our daily life) are the true ones! The reason is that all the remained particles which were created from high energy collision, theoretically they are calculated from the basic concept of quantum field (in which we do not know how it works) so they are not stable. And this explains why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe.
http://www.vacuum...=9〈=en
Urgelt
4.5 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2012
Does this analysis seem to rule out supersymetric particles? It looks like it does. It's not the end of supersymmetry, but it's definitely a strike against it. If supersymmetry gathers enough strikes, it'll be consigned to the dust bin of failed theories. Or, perhaps, undergo a fundamental reformulation, so that it doesn't predict a slew of massive particles. The core idea of multi-dimensional vibrating strings might hang on in some new form, maybe.

What about 'dark matter' particles?

Since dark matter hasn't been defined, this analysis doesn't rule out dark matter particles. It just rules out easily detectable (e.g. not weakly-interacting) fermions of larger masses than the twelve known fermions.

So. We may be nearing the limit of what we can learn through high-energy particle collisions. But there remain huge unsolved problems in fundamental physics. We'll need new tools to get at most of those problems; the era of big discoveries from colliders may be winding down.
VendicarD
1 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2012
And would alter the observed properties of the Higgie Fieldie thingie.

"The other generations exist for very short amounts of time" - Humph
Anda
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2012
Still waiting the verification here that what is thought to be the Higgs boson really has its properties.

And... @vacuum_mechanics, your ignorance matches your reader's skills: the proton is not an elementary particle, it's formed with Up- and Down-Quarks... as explained in the article...
And you "forget" in your argument the neutrons also made with those quarks.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (13) Dec 13, 2012
Does this mean super symmetric particles have been eliminated from possibility?
IMO the neutrinos are superpartners of photons - they just aren't recognized so, because the formally thinking theorists don't understand their own theories at the intuitive level, so they cannot see the forest for the trees. After all, many mainstream theories are misunderstood in similar way, like the aether concept before years. Whereas I'm not fan of string theory, many its concept are way more widespread, than we can even imagine (extradimensions, branes).
The general problem of modern theories, which are trying to reconcile the gravity with quantum field theories is, they're looking for their effects and predictions outside of relativity or quantum mechanics scales around black holes and microscopic particles. IMO it's huge misunderstanding, because we are living just in the middle between quantum mechanics and general relativity scales - so these quantum gravity effects are all around us.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (13) Dec 13, 2012
But why does nature have second and third generations, if these are hardly needed
In AWT particles are nested fluctuations of vacuum, which can be modeled with condensation of supercritical fluids. The dense gas condenses first into density fluctuations, which do form a new layer of fluid, which condenses further into even more dense fluctuations, which do form a new layer of fluid, and so on...
We may ask, how many levels could be formed during this iterative process? The simple dimensional analysis of hypersphere packing geometry reveals, that only three levels are possible. The trick is, the higher levels fluctuations fill the free space between these former ones, so that this system becomes homogeneous before the higher levels may be created.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) Dec 14, 2012
These three levels correspond the three levels of heterosis of dodecahedron as described with Lie E8 group geometry - a connection to sacred geometry of "fourth elements" exists there. The more detailed analysis reveals, that three levels of condensation would still leave the system slightly inhomogeneous, so that another generation of fluctuations may still occur - but it would require a considerably more drastic conditions. IMO this gap is responsible for good separation of particle levels in the observable Universe. Without it the particles forming the interior of atoms would differ only slightly from properties of electrons and atoms as a whole. So I presume, we can still observe the fourth generation of neutrino and quarks in future, but this generation will be separated from previous ones with wider gap at the mass/energy spectrum.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (8) Dec 14, 2012
Let us stick to the simplest building block for now: Namely the electron. Can anybody give any experiment that has ever been done to prove that the electron IS a "particle"? The perceptive question from the audience that was asked from J J Thomson when he claimed an electron is a "particle" is: "How could you have discovered a particle that nobody has ever seen?"

I am waiting with bated breath!
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (25) Dec 14, 2012
Let us stick to the simplest building block for now: Namely the electron. Can anybody give any experiment that has ever been done to prove that the electron IS a "particle"? The perceptive question from the audience that was asked from J J Thomson when he claimed an electron is a "particle" is: "How could you have discovered a particle that nobody has ever seen?"

I am waiting with bated breath!


What's the point of your objection? The electron is neither a particle nor a wave,... those are forms under which that identifiable entity is observed and described. That is all.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2012
@ boater, Eoprime: Supersymmetry isn't eliminated, and it is still our best candidate for dark matter so cosmology is still good. It is however moved to higher masses, less likely to interact with Standard Model particles and less likely to predict properties of the Standard Model, so particle physics is not helped.

Antimatter is part of the Standard Model (and SS), so it doesn't influence existence of SS directly. The question is not why we have antimatter, but why we have so little of it in our environment.

@ indio: These are all consequences of observation, so there are no a priori constraints posed.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2012
@ am: Particle theory is not fractal. Cosmology is most likely fractal, as we can have vacuum bubbles in vacuum bubbles ad infinitum. (And in the simplest versions of eternal inflation, there is explicit fractal-like attractors.)

@ baudrunner: Your idea is in direct conflict with cosmology, which shows that particles appears first after inflation.

@ Valeria: "Aether" is rejected by observations already over a century ago. It doesn't exist.
@ johanindigo: A particle is the quanta of a particle field. We have plenty of single electron detectors, here is a recent one: http://physicswor...w-record .
johanfprins
1 / 5 (9) Dec 14, 2012
What's the point of your objection? The electron is neither a particle nor a wave,... those are forms under which that identifiable entity is observed and described. That is all.

That is YOUR absurd definition which is not based on any experimental facts! Give me the experimental proof that an electron is "neither a particle nor a wave". We do not have to argue about whether it is a wave since we know that it diffracts and ONLY a wave can do this NOT a particle! What is "the form" under which an electron is experimentally observed as a "particle"?

Stop waving you hands: Remember that physics is "experimental philosophy"!
ant_oacute_nio354
1 / 5 (10) Dec 14, 2012
The Higgs doesn't exist.
The mass is an electric dipole moment.

Antonio Saraiva
johanfprins
1 / 5 (10) Dec 14, 2012
The Higgs doesn't exist.
Agree.

The mass is an electric dipole moment.

Antonio Saraiva


Mass is electromagnetic energy: Therefore a moving light wave has dynamic electromagnetic energy equal to m*c^2. A photon is a light wave with m*c^2=h*(nu).

A moving electron is also an EM wave with energy m*c^2=h*(nu) where part of this mass energy is now rest-mass. Therefore the electron EM-wave moves at a lower speed v.
indio007
1 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2012


@ indio: These are all consequences of observation, so there are no a priori constraints posed.


The what is this?
"The most important data used for this analysis come from the recently discovered Higgs particle. The Higgs particle gives all other particles their mass. As additional fermions were not detected directly in accelerator experiments, they have to be heavier than the fermions known so far. Hence, these fermions would also interact with the Higgs particle more strongly.

They think they found a particle in a certain energy range. Experiments have not been done on this particle's actual properties. Especially experiments on whether the particle discovered is giving other particles their mass.

The Higgs assumption makes the rest of the reasoning that follows a priori.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (11) Dec 14, 2012
"Aether" is rejected by observations already over a century ago
"Aether" was rejected by observation over a century ago. Aether was rejected by observation of negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment, which was based on fringe idea, that the light is mediated with longitudinal waves of aether and therefore it must be a subject of aether drag. But as we know, the light is transverse wave and such a waves don't exhibit a drag in any material environment. In addition, the Lorentz invariance was derived with Lorentz a long time before Einstein just with using of aether model - the constant speed of light can be derived easily from Maxwell equations, which are based on fluid model. So, how is it possible, the aether was disproved just with the same result, which this model predicts? The people like you, who are parroting the same sentence without reflecting any arguments just demonstrate, how religious and mentally rigid the contemporary physics actually is.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Dec 14, 2012
The Higgs doesn't exist. Agree.
It depends, how you define the Higgs. Higgs model has more then single formulation and its technical derivation consists in a mere reshuffling of degrees of freedom by transforming the Higgs Lagrangian in a gauge-invariant manner. Well known "hierarchy problem" implies, that quantum corrections can make the mass of the Higgs particle arbitrarily large, since virtual particles with arbitrarily large energies are allowed in quantum mechanics. Here you can find a compilation of hundred Higgs boson models, many of them were peer-reviewed. I'm not any fan of mainstream physics, but I think, that the Higgs field concept is relevant, despite it doesn't manifest with single boson and its mass depends on how it is measured.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Dec 14, 2012
IMO the identity problem of Higgs, WIMPs, supersymmetry, extradimensions or even strings are all of the same nature: these concepts are logically correct, but their rigor based formulations are poorly conditioned and misleading. The physicists are looking for them at places, where they cannot exist and ignore their real occurrences, because these concepts manifest with less or more different way, than the contemporary theories predict.
From AWT follows, that the vacuum is formed with density fluctuations, the energy density changes with scale. Inside of atom nuclei they're small, at the human observer scale they manifest with CMBR noise, or they appear like the dark matter foam at the cosmological scale. Does it mean, that the Higgs boson cannot manifest itself, after then? Of course not, it will just depend on the size/energy density of particles, which were used for its detection.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Dec 14, 2012
In addition, the dark matter streaks aren't spectrally pure - they exhibit many peaks depending on the dimensional/angular scale. These peaks represent the dodecahedron nodes/vortices of dark matter foam, which is of nested character. The similar frequency spectrum we can therefore observe even at the CMBR energy spectrum. Because on this spectrum the age of Universe in Big Bang theory is based, it just means, that the observable Universe has multiple histories and ages - it just depends how we are define it.

I presume, exactly the same stuff will be observe at the Higgs energy spectrum at the moment, when we collect more data. Because the Higgs field is not shapeless concept as Standard Model implies - it has structure of dodecahedron foam and its energy density exhibits multiple peaks at the energy spectrum.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Dec 14, 2012
Note that SUSY predicts multiple Higgs bosons too. When the more detailed spectra will reveal the existence of additional peaks, it would serve a great vindication of this model. But the problem is, the SUSY predicts the other properties of these particles differently - in particular it predicts somewhat lighter Higgses, then we are observing by now. So SUSY behaves like the real people: in some ideas they're brilliant, in some other ideas they're just plain wrong. We should handle these theories as such - the era of robust reliable models is over, because we are observing the Universe at the fuzzy boundaries of its observability. The observable reality becomes fragmented, fuzzy and uncertain at these scales by its very nature and the predictions of modern theories based on low-dimensional math become poorly conditioned and unreliable, although they can be still calculated with high precision.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (8) Dec 14, 2012
@ ValeriaT

Yea! Yea! Yea! BS! BS! BS!
baudrunner
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 14, 2012
@ baudrunner: Your idea is in direct conflict with cosmology, which shows that particles appears first after inflation.
The dickheadedness which prompts you to remark that is the product of a confused mind which has no apparent understanding of cosmology, let alone particle physics. Can't you grasp that at that moment of "inflation" all the energy which will yield all those precursor fermions which yield stable first generation fermions (matter particles) is itself the original colossal precursor fermion? Do you know what a precursor is? Do you understand that you have to count backward - 1st generation; 2nd generation; 3d generation; -> to the last generation which is the inflationary bubble? I doubt that you understand any of these things.
LarryD
1 / 5 (2) Dec 14, 2012
I am being over simplistic here, but in my simple view there would be a set of 'basic stable' (fundamental) particles. However these would be (simply) spherical organised energy in one of the stable configurations. Then what one would get from collisions would depend on how much and how the colliding energy was supplied. In other words, there could be hundreds of short lived configurations comprising, say, 2, 4, 8 'layers' of energy waves. I prefer to think that 'Nature' is a very good enconomist.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2012
Can't you grasp that at that moment of "inflation" all the energy which will yield all those precursor fermions which yield stable first generation fermions (matter particles) is itself the original colossal precursor fermion?


BRAVO!!!
But it does not have to be fermion itself: The energy within the inflationary "bubble" can be continuous electromagnetic-energy (mass-energy) without any kinetic-energy and thus without any entropy, until it starts to form blackbody radiation and precipitate neutrons: Just as George Gamow theorized.

The neutrons decay into protons and electrons which find themselves being heated by the blackbody radiation so that they gain kinetic energy: They then collide to generate the excited states which the dickheads, which are at present doing "particle" physics, consider as "precursors"!

The REAL precursors have been neutrons, then protons, electrons and neutrinos all along. The other "particle"-states are then excited states of these REAL precurors
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2012
I am being over simplistic here, but in my simple view there would be a set of 'basic stable' (fundamental) particles.


Except that these entities are not "particles" but localized stationary EM-waves

However these would be (simply) spherical organised energy in one of the stable configurations. Then what one would get from collisions would depend on how much and how the colliding energy was supplied. In other words, there could be hundreds of short lived configurations comprising, say, 2, 4, 8 'layers' of energy waves. I prefer to think that 'Nature' is a very good enconomist.


Again BRAVO!!

I am glad that people with brains are also starting to post!

The endless nonsense posted by ValeriaT, Natello, Neumenon etc. is getting boring!
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2012
"But why does nature have second and third generations, if these are hardly needed?"


Nature doesn't have most polymers or artificial crystals like in LCDs either.

Just because man can find a new way to arrange things doesn't mean it ever happened that way in nature.

The properties of the just discovered Higgs particle still have to be determined..


The scientists said it was "Higgs-like" and they haven't said anything since then...

and it has to be found out why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe.


The antimatter version of the B-meson (I think) decays six times faster than the matter version. That should be enough to explain most of it, after a few iterations of collisions.

Alternatively, if you were to collide a cloud of antimatter with a cloud of matter, the entire lot will not be annihilated. The explosions of the near-sides will release tremendous energy, blowing the two clouds apart above one another's escape velocity.

E=mc^2 > gravity
Kron
1 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2012
Neutral nucleons (neutrons) regularly transmutate in vacuum to form hydrogen particles (proton electron pairings). You could define neutrons as hydrogen atoms compressed into nuclear confinement. A TRANSMUTATION of a proton PRODUCES a neutron, a positron, and an electron antineutrino. In an atomic setting, the positron ANNIHILATES with an electron, gamma radiation is emitted.

So summing up, when a proton becomes a neutron this is what happens:
1. Neutrino is released,
2. An electron is lost,
3. Gamma light is produced.

If we apply this to a single hydrogen atom (containing 1 proton and 1 electron), the hydrogen atom loses an electron, releases an electron antineutrino and gamma radiation, and in the end we're left with a neutron.

This process is theoretical. It makes more sense to say that no positron is produced, and no annihilation takes place. The electron is lost because it merges with the proton.
Kron
1 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2012
The current physical models (both macro and micro) are obviously wrong but they do work in the predictive setting because they have been created out of observation of nature. Look deep enough at the theories and all have faults. Try applying gravity to quantum theory, or vice versa, we know the models are not *true. Better models will definitely emerge, you can wager on that. It is important to not look at the current theories as facts, they aren't, nature is true (objective), our interpretation of nature is not (it is subjective), so theories are not facts, scientific theories are not knowledge of nature. Science has nothing to do with knowledge or facts, or truths. Science is about interpretation of the objective reality. Evidence supports theories but it doesn't prove our interpetation as fact or truth.

The incompatibility of the macro and micro theories does provide evidence that these theories are wrong. Many think that the day a Theory Of Everything emerges we'll know the truth.
Kron
1 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2012
This is also false. Scientific theories can never give us knowledge, or facts, or truth.
Kron
1 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2012
But, science is immensely useful. Theories allow us to predict how nature will react under certain circumstances. This allows us to work with nature. It allows us to create things out of natural objects. We imagine and create. This is the power of intelligence. We can apply our theories and engineer objects we think up out of nature itself. This is the purpose of science.

If you're turning to science to answer questions on existence, you're looking in the wrong place. If you want answers turn to religion.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2012
Politicians are useful too, yet they require the public control over their expenses. As far the mainstream science becomes separated from everyday reality, it tends to solve its own problems, not the problems of the rest of human society which is paying all this fun. Currently we maintain independent alternative research for all perspective stuffs: cold fusion, antigravity, aether model, scalar waves, psychic phenomena or cluster medicine - and the mainstream science ignores them all.
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 15, 2012
cold fusion, antigravity, aether model, scalar waves, psychic phenomena or cluster medicine -


If any of those things worked, then the Zephyr would rule the world. So far he can't even rule over his own mind.
Kron
1 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2012
I can't say I fully agree with you ViralTea. In a way you are correct, research grants are awarded internally. Money is distributed to grad through-to post-doctoral students internally, the judgement upon which research is and isn't grant worthy is deliberated on by the institutional staff. Professor committees will sit and decide whether to award the applicant with a grant or not. While there are negatives to this method, I think the positives far outweigh it. Can you imagine if everytime a grant is to be awarded the general public had to be consulted? How time intensive would that be? You would waste more money on the administration than the worth of the grant. Even if it were free to ask 7 billion people a question like: should we study neutrino oscillations, it would take a long time. Most people probably wouldn't even care. Does this mean that the study is not worthy?

Public control over grants would fuck everything up for everyone (public included). Trust me on that.
Kron
1 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2012
The way to fix academia is by having better (and more open-minded) professors.

It is the same problem as the short-comings of government. Most people you talk to will tell you that government is corrupt. Well, no, the government is not corrupt, it is the people within it that are corrupt. You will not get rid of a corrupt government by instituting new laws and regulations. Corrupt people will always find loop-holes. The only way to fix a corrupt government is to remove corrupt personnel.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2012
If any of those things worked, then the Zephyr would rule the world.
It's like the waving with piece of radioactive stone in hands and the screaming, that the unlimited source of energy is right there - in medieval times. You'll get roasted at bonfire as a warlock instead. These things work, but the human civilization is not sufficiently advanced to intercept them.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 15, 2012
Bonfire ya say?

But what has that to do with the first principle of static water outside of the vortex of paddle waves which displays the outer reality and inner dignity?
LarryD
2 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2012
I prefer to think that 'Nature' is a very good enconomist.

Again BRAVO!!

I am glad that people with brains are also starting to post!

The endless nonsense posted by ValeriaT, Natello, Neumenon etc. is getting boring!

Thanks for the compliment, johanfprins, but I don't deserve it..just trying to be Logical. Math books, for example, one finds authors say 'Nature' exhibits (some) patterns that follow Fibonacci sequence and others deny this. I have not made a critical study myself but it does seem that 'Nature' might approximate certain patterns frequently. In the present context I am very simplistic (yet again),the 'fine structure constant' 1/137 (round figures). In a 2D circle 360/137=1.6210..^2,fairly close to the Golden Ratio. My own (simple) theoretical excursions imply another ratio 11/3;0,1,1,2,4...55 =(11/3)*15. Integer sequences are simply multiples of this, the 11th position thus is a multiple of 11/3 which also seems related to many topics I call it 'Tridel Factor'
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2012
The current physical models (both macro and micro) are obviously wrong but they do work in the predictive setting because they have been created out of observation of nature.


Correct.

Just because a formula or belief works for some (or even most,) predictive phenomenon, or appears to work, does not mean that every underlying assumption of the formula is actually true.

People once believed fire to be a "fundamental element" of nature, when in fact Fire is a secondary side-effect of chemistry.

They had ALL of the underlying facts wrong, yet they understood fire well enough to use it every day: making tools, weapons, and cook with it, and about the only thing they could "predict" about it was that lightning could cause it or that rubbing two sticks together could cause it.

Physicists are like two cavemen rubbing sticks together.

Sure, the sticks are "working," but that doesn't guarantee assumptions about why or how they work are true.
rkilburn81
1 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2012
There are no particles, just interacting waves.
VendicarD
5 / 5 (1) Dec 15, 2012
Possibly.

"is itself the original colossal precursor fermion?" - Baudrunner

Can you prove that it was stable? Fundamental particles must be stable for some time.

Kron
1 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2012
Possibly.

"is itself the original colossal precursor fermion?" - Baudrunner

Can you prove that it was stable? Fundamental particles must be stable for some time.


Stable particles:
1. electron and antiparticle
2. electron neutrino and antiparticle
3. Photon
4. graviton (yet undiscovered)
indio007
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2012
Like I said ... a priori assumptions fail. Where do the opinions in this article stand now?

Higgs Hiccup: Contradictory Results Show Up at LHC
http://www.wired....=4963184

"Something slightly odd seems to be going on with the Higgs boson. Separate measurements of its properties are showing two slightly different masses, according to scientists who presented their latest data on Dec. 13."
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (8) Dec 16, 2012
"Something slightly odd seems to be going on with the Higgs boson. Separate measurements of its properties are showing two slightly different masses, according to scientists who presented their latest data on Dec. 13."


Silly rabbits.

If the Higgs gives everything else mass, then what gives a Higgs relative mass in an alternate reference frame, with alternate velocities: nature vs particle accelerator, stationary observer vs co-moving observer?

The Higgs twin paradox.

I start with two identical Higgses on a launch pad. One stays behind, the other goes on a rocket ship at relativistic velocities, let's say 0.877c.

Ignorant Einstein claims that one of the two Higgses will have it's length cut in half, and it's mass doubled.

Now if the Higgs gives everything else it's mass, where did the extra mass for the "heavy Higgs" come from?

Einstein's problem is his thought experiments were flawed, in that they don't start with shared knowledge, the way real rocket ships do...
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (8) Dec 16, 2012
Now we have a problem.

Obviously Einstein is wrong, because a planetary clock can't gain 16 times mass just because a guy gets in a space ship on a launch pad (with identical atomic clocks, one at NASA and one on his ship, both synchronized with the Earth's orbit,) and then fly off into space and "actually" see the mass of the universe go up 16 times as Einstein's foolish formula forecasts.

Plus the Higgs, under ignorant Einstein's formula, would need to increase it's own mass so many times to match pace, or else more higgses would need to pop into existence to make up the difference.

So for a rocket ship to fly at 1g accelerations for years on end, in Einstein's theory the universe allegedly gains mass in one reference frame, but there is not enough energy on the Ship to explain where this mass comes from, nor where the fundamental unit of mass could come from to be multiplied times over to make the universe N times more massive.

Thought experiments can make pink elephants fly.
clay_ferguson
1 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2012
@Lurker, the current thinking is that higgs is a field in all space and mass is created not "out of nothing" (as you seem to think) but as a result of motion thru that field. Remember, mass is not a solid thing, just like the electron is not a solid thing. Nature has NO "solid things". Energy is the only thing that obeys conservation laws. For example, when an electron jumps to a lower energy orbital (or level) it will emit photons that DID NOT EXIST BEFORE. Nature "creates" photons "out of thin air" so to speak. But the Energy balance remains perfect. The same is true for bosons. They are "created" by Energy. So if something speeds up it takes energy, and that energy can be used to CREATE NEW bosons, that did not exist before. They didn't need to be 'onboard a ship', in order to be 'produced' as you imply.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (8) Dec 16, 2012
@ValeriaT,

Yea! Yea! YEA! More BS! BS! BS!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2012
... colossal precursor fermion?" - Baudrunner

Can you prove that it was stable? Fundamental particles must be stable for some time.


There are no fundamental "particles" only resonant states of waves: Each so-called "particle" is a wave that is stationary within an inertial reference frame. Within the other inertial reference frames it is a moving wave.

A matter wave need not be a small region filled with EM-energy, but can be a large region filled with distributed EM-(mass-energy). During Guth's inflationary period, our whole Universe probably consisted of a SINGLE wave filled with distributed EM mass-energy. Only after inflation, the density of this energy became low enough to cause blackbody radiation and precipitate neutrons Only at this stage kinetic-motion through space became possible so that time, temperature and entropy appeared.

This primordial wave (our Universe containing dark matter, normal matter and light) is still expanding to again end up with zero entropy
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (9) Dec 16, 2012
@Lurker, the current thinking is that higgs is a field in all space and mass is created not "out of nothing" (as you seem to think) but as a result of motion thru that field.


It doesn't work. You are misunderstanding something.

I posted the double-synchronized atomic clock, with a solar system calendar and cameras controlled thought experiment to demonstrate this.

Do you really believe that a space ship burning some fuel to fly off at a relativistic speed will increase the mass of the Sun by the reciprocal of Lorentz Factor?

When you start the ship on an Earth-bound launch pad, both observers already know the Sun and Earth's mass, and they already know one another's mass and waist size and stuff. So they are not free to re-interpret these data, because both "reference frames" are forced to start with the same data.

In an absurd abstraction where neither observer knows anything about on another, mass and length vary because they are unknowns....
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (8) Dec 16, 2012
So if something speeds up it takes energy, and that energy can be used to CREATE NEW bosons, that did not exist before. They didn't need to be 'onboard a ship', in order to be 'produced' as you imply.


Your reading comprehension is near zero.

I didn't say they needed to be on a ship to be produced. silly.

It was a thought experiment to show the absurdity of the situation, but you didn't even understand what I wrote, so how could I expect you to address the real issue?!
baudrunner
1 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2012
VendicarD: Of course it wasn't stable. That's why it only stayed around for a few trillionths of a second, in agreement with the currently accepted "moment after the Big Bang" paradigm. None of the fermions are stable until their energies are assembled into the first generation fermions.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2012
Each so-called "particle" is a wave that is stationary within an inertial reference frame.
Stationary wave is the particle in common sense after then (Einstein defined the particles like the "object with their center of mass"). Whole the particle-wave duality is in the seamless switching of inertial reference frame into non-inertial and back again. But IMO you're ignoring the fact, most of particles are actually a composite aggregates of many less or more individual subparticles/solitons/standing waves. Atoms aren't formed with single waves of electrons, but with many electrons which are moving independently. Atom nuclei aren't single standing waves, but the dense droplets of many nucleons. I presume, the same composite model applies even to more fundamental particles, not to say about heavier objects. So your "everything is a standing wave" model has actually a quite narrow applicability range, being too schematic.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2012
The fact, that the composite particles like the atom nuclei or electrons can behave like single interfering wave in some experiments (typically the double slit experiment) is IMO not the consequence of their internal "standing wave" structure, but the fact, these composite aggregates still form a single wake wave during their motion through elastic vacuum in similar way, like the boat at the surface of river. The whole boat can be internally very complex object quite dissimilar to single standing wave - but because it interacts with obstacles via its wake wave only at distance, it still behaves so in some contexts. And the schematically thinking physicists like you are fooled with it, especially when they succeed with formal model based on "single wave" approach in some particular scope of their interest. But I don't care very much, if some formal model (like the epicycles) works well in particular situation (geocentric model), as I do pursue the universal model of physical reality.
Kron
1 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2012
composite particles like the atom nuclei or electrons

Electrons are not composite particles. Composite particles are made-up-of (or composed-of) elementary particles. An electron is a lepton, leptons are elementary particles.

Protons (for an example) are composite particles. Protons are composed of a large number of quarks and gluons. Most quarks within a proton are offset by their own antiparticle. The proton within its radius has an equal amount of up-quarks and anti-up-quarks plus 2 more up-quarks, it has an equal amount of down-quarks and anti-down-quarks plus 1 more down quark, it has an equal amount of strange-quarks and anti-strange-quarks, and is filled with gluons binding everything together.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2012
Each so-called "particle" is a wave that is stationary within an inertial reference frame.
So your "everything is a standing wave" model has actually a quite narrow applicability range, being too schematic.


I do not want to respond to your continuous BS which only serve to obfuscate! It does not matter out of how many sub-waves a piece of matter consists, it is still a matter-wave and this wave MUST be a stationary wave within its own inertial reference frame. Even a block of copper is a macro matter-wave which has a de Broglie wave-length when it moves.

Thus each separate piece of matter, which do not experience a force, is a stationary EM-wave within an inertial reference frame; which when observed from another inertial reference frame is moving with a coherent de Broglie wavelength inversely proportional to its momentum: No matter what its internal constituent-waves are!